Johnson v. Williams

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: N24C-08-088 CEB
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MELISSA D. JOHNSON, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No. N24C-08-088 CEB v. ) ) LYNDA WILLIAMS, ) ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

This 7th day of October, 2025, the Court finds:

1. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she was driving on the

Philadelphia Pike and made a left turn at Marsh Road when the Defendant’s vehicle

collided with Plaintiff’s. Apparently the Plaintiff vehicle was turning left and the

Defendant vehicle was going straight in the opposite direction when they collided.

2. So the question becomes: who had the right of way?

3. Complicating matters for the Plaintiff is that the Complaint says

Plaintiff had a solid green left turn arrow. But in her deposition, Plaintiff testified

that there was no turn arrow, merely a green light. Defendant seizes upon this

testimony to argue that Plaintiff admits she did not have a green arrow giving her the right of way. Defendant seeks summary judgment on the basis of this testimony,

arguing that this admission means Plaintiff cannot recover and Defendant is entitled

to judgment.

4. Plaintiff argues that discovery is ongoing and is not due for completion

for many months yet. Thus, Plaintiff argues, summary disposition is inappropriate

at this stage. Defendant is unsure what else there is to discover, since Plaintiff has

admitted turning in front of oncoming traffic.

5. It is unclear to the Court at this point exactly what happened and who

had the right of way. For example, in contradiction to Plaintiff’s deposition

testimony, the narrative police report appended to the motion states that Plaintiff

“observed a solid green arrow indicating she had the right of way.” Surely there is

a simple answer whether the intersection is controlled by a basic green light or a

traffic arrow. It is less certain which one was lighted when Plaintiff went through it.

A deposition of Defendant and/or other eyewitnesses may clear up exactly who

struck whom. Or not.

6. For now, it is enough to say there are material facts in dispute that

further discovery may (or may not) put to rest. The Court cannot grant summary

disposition in this matter until there are no material facts in dispute.

2 7. Defendant’s motion is therefore denied, without prejudice to return

once fact discovery is completed if Defendant believes she can convince the Court

that there are no material facts in dispute.

Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Butler Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge